braces_for_impact

Posted by magus55
Magus55, this makes absolutely NO sense! Think about it! If you could prove a historical Jesus, it would still NOT prove his divinity! "Atheists" have nothing to lose here!

Mageth

I think its just so easy for atheists to dismiss Jesus of Nazareth existing, and no other historical figure because of who He claimed to be. Had Jesus never claimed to be divine and the Messiah, you would have absolutely no problem accepting Him as a historical figure.

And as I pointed out, Alexander the Great claimed to be a god.

Doctor X

I am always most gratified when posters make my arguments for me, even if they prove sloppy:

No one made any such suggestion. Though the individual concedes that someone having a brother rather demonstrates he must have existed. Unfortunately, he continues his fallacious analysis with:

I am unaware of any authors, including Sir Arthur, claiming to have met either Sherlock or Mycroft--as Paul did. If the individual has met such he would do well to consider a stronger therapy.

MortalWombat:

I think his implication is rather clear, particularly given later traditions concerning James--Lk-Acts, for example. Why would different authors "make up" a brother? Paul rather disagrees with James, and I find it rather unlikely that he would concede support to a figure he disagreed with.

Again, that does not say anything more tangible about him.

Magus:

I think you will have considerable difficulty with this:

Well, that is just Paul which hardly constitutes "a lot."

On the contrary, they were composed after 70 C.E. The earliest dating for Mk is just after the destruction of Jerusalem. Since both Mt and Lk use him as a source, they follow him.

Yet you raise a very interesting question obliquely:

Were they? When? Specifically, if you believe Paul and Lk-Acts, the prominent members that the Synoptic writers do not particularly like existed in Jerusalem.

Why did the Romans not hunt them down?

Thus the problem with extending an existence into a life. Perhaps people want "the teachings" to have been earth-shattering and controversial. If they were, why did the Romans not expunge them?

Now:

I am afraid that scholarship has rather discarded that. The fact that the Mt and Lk-Acts writers use Mk as a source along with the "saying source" Q and their late date rather argues against that assumption. Besides, one would think they could get minor facts like a birthdate correct.

Given the quality of the rest of your evidence you cite--tomb Solomon, grave of Junior--well I can imagine this may not exactly meet your approval. However, I would strongly suggest availing yourself of the references listed in the thread that heads this section because in order to support your claim you will have to argue against a couple of hundred years of scholarship. Asha'man rather summarizes the problems with your citations.

Asha'man:

You demonstrate quite well that the fact someone existed does not add a hell of a lot to our certainty about what he did:

Just because some guy existed does not mean that what later writers attributed to him have any basis in fact at all. If one takes a "conservative" view of Galatians versus Acts it seems that Paul preached a message that did not meet with the approval of the Jerusalem Group. So . . . was Paul even close? However, did the Jerusalem Group "preach" what Junior preached? Who knows?

I think people can argue "possibilities" based on the stories so long as they confess that they are nothing but that. I think that the Synoptics preserve "difficult" events that the writers either could not get rid of or had to explain. One is the obviously erroneous claim to destroy the temple. Another is a tradition of execution. I think writers had a need to "explain" such. With Mk it is a part of the journey whereas by the time you get to Jn, Junior has mapped out the whole damn thing. Of course, neither accounts may reflect any historical accuracy whatsoever!

Radcliff Emerson:

Blasphemer! Heretic! [Stop that!--Ed.] Yes . . . sorry . . . always wanted to do that. . . .

You raise a good point, but I think evidence indicates otherwise. It would not explain why he wrote Galatians in opposition to Acts--why not just have Acts support him fully? Furthermore, why would Mt and Lk be so wrong on events--births taking place ten years apart, Judas hangs himself or kind of explodes, the journeys do not mesh, et cetera? It certainly does not explain a Q. I would think if Paul intended this he would have not allowed so many competing versions to exist. I think he would have established a basic story and even used it to support him in his genuine letters.

Of course, he could have developed his own take on "da message" which had little or nothing to do with whatever Junior may have said. I would find that quite possible.

It is all rather elementary. . . .

--J.D.

Magus55

Did Alexander die and rise from the grave, as recorded by eyewitnesses? Was his death and ressurection prophecised 1000 years before he was born? Did he perform any prophecised miracles and have witnesses?

Based on what? Have you ever seen Alexander? Do you know what he looks like from personal experience? How do you know the coins are actually him?

Magus55

Thats not the point of this thread - read the heading - it talks of the historical Jesus, not necessarily him being divine - its one thing if you don't believe He is God, but its a huge stretch and twisting of reason and evidence to claim he never even existed.

And it makes perfect sense. You accept any other historical figure existing as fact, with just as much evidence, if not less than Jesus because they never made the claims Jesus made, or had such an impact. If Jesus didn't claim to be God, and become the most influential and well known human ever to walk the Earth - there wouldn't be a question of His historical existence. Its just because He was the beginning of Christianity, something you hate, and his life revolves around something that is outside your little comfort blanket of science.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
Did Alexander die and rise from the grave, as recorded by eyewitnesses?

Did Jesus? (Hint: Jesus' alleged resurrection was not recorded by eyewitnesses).

Was his death and ressurection prophecised 1000 years before he was born?

Was Jesus'? It's alleged to be so, but is it true?

Did he perform any prophecised miracles and have witnesses?

Did Jesus? Again, it's alleged to be so.

BTW, you've quoted Josephus before in support of Jesus. Josephus reported that Alexander the Great once miraculously parted a river so his army could cross.

The point, Magus, is that, for both Alexander and Jesus, all you have to go on is written accounts that allege divinity, miracles, etc. On that basis, Alexander's claim to divinity are as equally valid as Jesus'.

Based on what? Have you ever seen Alexander? Do you know what he looks like from personal experience? How do you know the coins are actually him?

Don't ask me; ask the historians/archaeologists that say the many surviving images of Alexander are actually Alexander (or, in some cases, idealized versions of him).

Here's a few ancient images of Alexander.

BTW, for what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that someone (or perhaps several someones) actually served as the basis of the Jesus legend.

Tercel

Has it occurred to you that “brothers of the Lord”, rather than supporting your thesis as you suppose, is actually a reference to the brothers of Jesus? ie “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas” (Mat 13:56; Mark 6:3)

I admit that it has been a few years now since I studied Alexander at school, however my memory tells me that we don’t have any surviving contemporary accounts. I seem to remember us studying a lot of what Plutarch wrote – and if I recall correctly he was a Roman historian writing some centuries after Alexander.
Do you accept Eusebius’ writings as evidence of Jesus’ existence I wonder?

This is a common skeptic mistake. Some months ago I drafted a list of the mentions of the historical Jesus in the New Testament Epistles. (Composed mainly with Doherty’s arguments in mind) It is a fairly extensive listing and can be found here.

Toto

We don't have surviving first person accounts of Alexander, but we have evidence that there were such first person accounts and later histories that were based on the first person accounts. For Jesus, we have no evidence of any written first person accounts that Eusebius could have used.

Thor Q. Mada

Magus55,

Everything you write is just rehashing and mixing-up old unproven stuff.
What is the proof for "risen from the grave"?? The eye witnessses??
I would laugh if it wasn't so sad. And the 1000 year prophesy??
That is your interpretation. There are more than a few people that don't agree with that for example the jews to name a few.
And the miracles?? What miracles? Still today the catholic church invents and records more and more miracles!!
Very credible!!
Especially with the unbiased record keeper eagerly looking for a miracle.
Just all old mythology like the scandinavian one or the greek one, and all make believe for around the campfire, later hijacked by control freaks.
Wake-up my friend and see the light.

Vorkosigan

Clearly not.

• 1 Am not I an apostle? am not I free? Jesus Christ our Lord have I not seen? my work are not ye in the Lord?
  2 if to others I am not an apostle -- yet doubtless to you I am; for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord.
  3 My defence to those who examine me in this;
  4 have we not authority to eat and to drink?
  5 have we not authority a sister -- a wife -- to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
  6 or only I and Barnabas, have we not authority -- not to work?
  7 who doth serve as a soldier at his own charges at any time? who doth plant a vineyard, and of its fruit doth not eat? or who doth feed a flock, and of the milk of the flock doth not eat?

The brethren of the lord here are people running the show in Jerusalem. Paul is discussing his relationship with the cult's HQ, not the physical brothers of Jesus. If he really meant Jude, James and Simon, we didn't he write out the names (he names Cephas as separate from the apostles here....)

We've been over this ground before, and Doherty has provided a fairly extensive rebuttal to this list....hang on.

Vorkosigan